I have a requirement to do some scripted text file processing on Windows. I plan on using a cross-platform tool (awk comes to mind) but as I don't have any real skills in anything (I used awk many years ago but not recently) I thought it best to come at it with a clean slate, as I will want to re-use the skills I pick up (almost entirely on Linux).
What I need to do in this case is read a CSV file, remove a few lines that are of no interest and combine a couple of fields to create new ones. Awk would definitely do this (albeit I have some reading to do to remember how) - but is it still the best tool for the job?
Mark
On 04-Dec-2013 13:06:35 Mark Rogers wrote:
I have a requirement to do some scripted text file processing on Windows. I plan on using a cross-platform tool (awk comes to mind) but as I don't have any real skills in anything (I used awk many years ago but not recently) I thought it best to come at it with a clean slate, as I will want to re-use the skills I pick up (almost entirely on Linux).
What I need to do in this case is read a CSV file, remove a few lines that are of no interest and combine a couple of fields to create new ones. Awk would definitely do this (albeit I have some reading to do to remember how) - but is it still the best tool for the job?
Mark
-- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG
I don't know about others, but awk is of course pretty good!
In case it may be useful (perhaps also to others) I attach herewith my 7-page Awk Language Summary as PDF:
awk.language.summary.pdf
(distilled from the book by Aho Weinberger & Kernighan).
Best wishes to all, Ted.
------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@wlandres.net Date: 04-Dec-2013 Time: 13:41:37 This message was sent by XFMail -------------------------------------------------
On 4 December 2013 13:43, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@wlandres.net wrote:
In case it may be useful (perhaps also to others) I attach herewith my 7-page Awk Language Summary as PDF:
Thanks Ted, that looks really useful, particularly given I have used awk before and really need a refresher.
On 04/12/13 16:02, Mark Rogers wrote:
On 4 December 2013 13:43, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@wlandres.net wrote:
In case it may be useful (perhaps also to others) I attach herewith my 7-page Awk Language Summary as PDF:
Thanks Ted, that looks really useful, particularly given I have used awk before and really need a refresher.
Wait, what? That does sound really useful and I never saw it :'(
Did Ted reply off-list?
Ted, any chance of posting that to the list?
Cheers, Steve
On 05-Dec-2013 09:08:33 Steve Engledow wrote:
On 04/12/13 16:02, Mark Rogers wrote:
On 4 December 2013 13:43, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@wlandres.net wrote:
In case it may be useful (perhaps also to others) I attach herewith my 7-page Awk Language Summary as PDF:
Thanks Ted, that looks really useful, particularly given I have used awk before and really need a refresher.
Wait, what? That does sound really useful and I never saw it :'(
Did Ted reply off-list?
Ted, any chance of posting that to the list?
Cheers, Steve
I replied to the list, with Cc: to Mark (which is why he got it), but I received an auto-reponse
Your mail to 'main' with the subject RE: [ALUG] Cross-platform text file processing tools Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has a suspicious header
and am still waiting!
Steve: I'll drop you an off-list email with it attached.
Best wishes, Ted.
------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@wlandres.net Date: 05-Dec-2013 Time: 09:32:20 This message was sent by XFMail -------------------------------------------------
On 05/12/13 09:32, (Ted Harding) wrote:
On 05-Dec-2013 09:08:33 Steve Engledow wrote:
On 04/12/13 16:02, Mark Rogers wrote:
On 4 December 2013 13:43, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@wlandres.net wrote:
In case it may be useful (perhaps also to others) I attach herewith my 7-page Awk Language Summary as PDF:
Thanks Ted, that looks really useful, particularly given I have used awk before and really need a refresher.
Wait, what? That does sound really useful and I never saw it :'(
Did Ted reply off-list?
Ted, any chance of posting that to the list?
Cheers, Steve
I replied to the list, with Cc: to Mark (which is why he got it), but I received an auto-reponse
Your mail to 'main' with the subject RE: [ALUG] Cross-platform text file processing tools Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has a suspicious header
and am still waiting!
Steve: I'll drop you an off-list email with it attached.
[]
Hi folks. To begin with, IANAA* When I read this thread (in threaded view in Thunderbird), I saw the initial post from Mark. Then I saw Mark's reply to Ewan. I'd *wrongly* assumed that Ewan replied solely off-list to Mark and Mark replied on list to Ewan's off-list reply. I was going to comment about this.
I then saw Mark reply to (Ted ), without first having seen Ted's post. I again *wrongly* assumed that this was an off-list reply being quoted.
Today however, I see Ewan and Ted's posts, and and Ted's comment that he got a reply saying that his message "Message has a suspicious header".
Looking at the posts that appeared late, it became apparent that Ewan's post was in HTML, and Ted's post contained an attachment. AIUI**, either of these will result in a post to ALUG being redirected to and Admin, who will then either approve or reject the post, so it won't appear quickly - may be a day or so after the original post.
AIUI, posting in HTML and adding attachments, whilst not completely forbidden, are frowned upon.
Below is my summary of some of what I believe the etiquette of posting to ALUG is. I could be wrong. Please excuse me if I am. Also, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do - it's not my place - I'm not an Admin.
* If someone posts on ALUG, generally try to reply on list, unless it's personal or confidential. Otherwise someone searching for the solution to a problem may find someone on ALUG with the same problem, but be unable to find the solution because it was posted off list.
* If someone replies to you off-list, generally it is considered impolite to quote that reply on-list. You have to assume that there was a reason for the reply not being made public, and should attempt to honour it.
* Avoid posting in HTML text.
* If at all possible, attachments should be saved on a website somewhere and a link to the attachment provided.
Some or all of this was covered in a thread on 04 Jun 2010 called "Using the Alug mailing list - Attachments and html".
Quoting the initial post: "Can I please remind everyone that Alug is supposed to be a plain text mailing list only, I do approve the odd html post here and there to keep communication up but it's getting more and more frequent. Can people please check their mail client is set to only send plain text to this mailing list.
Also, sending attachments to this list will result in them being rejected (mostly). If you do have a large file or log then consider putting it on some web hosting somewhere and providing a link or using a pastebin instead."
Perhaps it would be worth re-posting the "rules" and/or etiquette on a regular basis? Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am).
Steve
On 5 December 2013 11:58, Steve Engledow steve.engledow@proxama.com wrote:
On 05/12/13 11:48, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:
Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am).
/me votes yes
As a co-conspirator in the email thread that caused this, another "me too" here.
Aside: when any "good" email client receives two copies of the same email via different routes (in this case via the list and via direct CC) it will generally combine them so you only see one copy. On receipt of the useful PDF I only commented to this list after checking it was indeed sent to the list[*], but there's no easy way to see that, although it was sent to me via two routes, it was only received via one of them (and that it wasn't the list). So whilst I agree that if someone (deliberately or by mistake) emails me off-list I'd have no right to reply to it on-list, if (as was the case here) the sender clearly intended it to be public by posting it to the list (albeit that it never got there) then an on-list reply is appropriate.
[*] To say I checked is over-stating it: I did a reply-to-all and shuffled the recipients around to make ALUG the To: and removed the other recipient, as I would normally do. Had it not been sent to ALUG this process would have flagged it up as an off-list reply.
It did seem odd that the PDF had come through via the list - given I frequently get hit by the HTML issue (using Gmail as a mail client - I didn't actually say I used a decent mail client did I?), but I didn't think much more of it.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:48:58AM +0000, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:
Perhaps it would be worth re-posting the "rules" and/or etiquette on a regular basis? Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am).
Technically this is a repost of the "rules" but the "rules" are loosely enforced and liable to change depending on my mood as an admin. :)
Basically all of what you wrote above is correct. I allowed the pdf from Ted based on what someone else told me, the html is annoying but I'm pragmatic about it, if there was a significant amount of it then it would get rejected.
If anyone would like to be an admin too then let me know as I only get around to it when the emails telling me that there is admin to be done annoy me. :)
Thanks Adam
On 05/12/13 12:02, Adam Bower wrote:
If anyone would like to be an admin too then let me know as I only get around to it when the emails telling me that there is admin to be done annoy me. :)
I could if we need more admins.
Steve
On 05/12/13 12:02, Adam Bower wrote:
/snip/
If anyone would like to be an admin too then let me know as I only get around to it when the emails telling me that there is admin to be done annoy me. :)
I'm not ignoring this kind offer unconsidered and going on to the next item out of CBA-ness: before I could even consider such - how to put this without being suspected of being frivolous or mocking? - I'd want more knowledge about deciphering headers, how to identify forgeries and not unimportantly, a decent broadband connection.*
*My internet (and phone) connection is a poor GPRS one, and I have no (intact) copper feeder to the house. BT doesn't respond to communications, not even snail, and the 'report-a-fault-by-telephone' callcentre is incompetent and unintelligible.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 12:49:23PM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
I'd want more knowledge about deciphering headers, how to identify forgeries and not unimportantly, a decent broadband connection.*
I'd expect all volunteers to know how to do this or at least some of it and be willing to learn quickly. If someone needed lots of explanation then I'd not add them as an admin as I don't have the free time to give over to explanations. :)
Anyhow, admin quota is now full.
Adam
On 05/12/13 12:54, Adam Bower wrote:
Anyhow, admin quota is now full.
Excellent!
On 05/12/13 11:48, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:
Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am).
I am.
As a precaution (not realised there was *any* of it on ALUG!) my reder (Thunderbird) is set to display only plain text.
To clarify; from the initial welcome message every subscriber receives...
"You can choose to receive bundles of emails instead by selecting "digest mode" for your subscription. If that's still too much, please consider keeping in touch by joining the announcements mailing list. Because the list is so busy, we ask for your help: trim your copy of the previous message (please) and do not using attachments or HTML email (which will be rejected)."
Gmail users be aware that it defaults to HTML unless you specify otherwise.
Cheers, BJ (list admin)
On 5 December 2013 11:48, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:
On 05/12/13 09:32, (Ted Harding) wrote:
On 05-Dec-2013 09:08:33 Steve Engledow wrote:
On 04/12/13 16:02, Mark Rogers wrote:
On 4 December 2013 13:43, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@wlandres.net wrote:
In case it may be useful (perhaps also to others) I attach herewith my 7-page Awk Language Summary as PDF:
Thanks Ted, that looks really useful, particularly given I have used awk before and really need a refresher.
Wait, what? That does sound really useful and I never saw it :'(
Did Ted reply off-list?
Ted, any chance of posting that to the list?
Cheers, Steve
I replied to the list, with Cc: to Mark (which is why he got it), but I received an auto-reponse
Your mail to 'main' with the subject RE: [ALUG] Cross-platform text file processing tools Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has a suspicious header
and am still waiting!
Steve: I'll drop you an off-list email with it attached.
[]
Hi folks. To begin with, IANAA* When I read this thread (in threaded view in Thunderbird), I saw the initial post from Mark. Then I saw Mark's reply to Ewan. I'd *wrongly* assumed that Ewan replied solely off-list to Mark and Mark replied on list to Ewan's off-list reply. I was going to comment about this.
I then saw Mark reply to (Ted ), without first having seen Ted's post. I again *wrongly* assumed that this was an off-list reply being quoted.
Today however, I see Ewan and Ted's posts, and and Ted's comment that he got a reply saying that his message "Message has a suspicious header".
Looking at the posts that appeared late, it became apparent that Ewan's post was in HTML, and Ted's post contained an attachment. AIUI**, either of these will result in a post to ALUG being redirected to and Admin, who will then either approve or reject the post, so it won't appear quickly - may be a day or so after the original post.
AIUI, posting in HTML and adding attachments, whilst not completely forbidden, are frowned upon.
Below is my summary of some of what I believe the etiquette of posting to ALUG is. I could be wrong. Please excuse me if I am. Also, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do - it's not my place - I'm not an Admin.
- If someone posts on ALUG, generally try to reply on list, unless it's
personal or confidential. Otherwise someone searching for the solution to a problem may find someone on ALUG with the same problem, but be unable to find the solution because it was posted off list.
- If someone replies to you off-list, generally it is considered
impolite to quote that reply on-list. You have to assume that there was a reason for the reply not being made public, and should attempt to honour it.
Avoid posting in HTML text.
If at all possible, attachments should be saved on a website somewhere
and a link to the attachment provided.
Some or all of this was covered in a thread on 04 Jun 2010 called "Using the Alug mailing list - Attachments and html".
Quoting the initial post: "Can I please remind everyone that Alug is supposed to be a plain text mailing list only, I do approve the odd html post here and there to keep communication up but it's getting more and more frequent. Can people please check their mail client is set to only send plain text to this mailing list.
Also, sending attachments to this list will result in them being rejected (mostly). If you do have a large file or log then consider putting it on some web hosting somewhere and providing a link or using a pastebin instead."
Perhaps it would be worth re-posting the "rules" and/or etiquette on a regular basis? Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am).
Steve
--
- IANAA = I am not an administrator
** AIUI = As I understand it
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
<snip> << * If someone posts on ALUG, generally try to reply on list, unless it's personal or confidential. Otherwise someone searching for the solution to a problem may find someone on ALUG with the same problem, but be unable to find the solution because it was posted off list.
<snip>
Perhaps it would be worth re-posting the "rules" and/or etiquette on a regular basis? Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am). Steve >>
Although there are exception when, for example, people need to send .bin files to fix things like scanners... Then anything other than off list would be rude.
Could I add snipping text if you can when replying to long posts or a series of posts? Please? Thank you.
Otherwise they sound entirely reasonable, Steve.
Bev. (Who will try not to top post in future.)
On 05/12/13 12:57, Bev Nicolson wrote:
[Snip about staying on-list]
Although there are exception when, for example, people need to send .bin files to fix things like scanners... Then anything other than off list would be rude.
Oh, yes, I did didn't I? You're right Bev! :-)
Could I add snipping text if you can when replying to long posts or a series of posts? Please? Thank you.
Otherwise they sound entirely reasonable, Steve.
Bev. (Who will try not to top post in future.)
Not getting at anyone, as I've top-posted myself on occasion, but this has reminded me of something that used to crop up when I frequented newsgroups, along the lines of:
'Top Posting' doesn't mean that what you've posted is good - rather the opposite!
Steve
On 5 December 2013 13:09, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:
On 05/12/13 12:57, Bev Nicolson wrote:
<snip>
Bev. (Who will try not to top post in future.)
Not getting at anyone, as I've top-posted myself on occasion, but this has reminded me of something that used to crop up when I frequented newsgroups, along the lines of:
'Top Posting' doesn't mean that what you've posted is good - rather the opposite!
I've never really had a problem with top posting and have myself done so by accident many times. it's pretty much the norm these days, however it is frowned upon on this list. Good practice is to remove any non relevant text from the quoted text whilst giving some indication on where an deletion edit has been made. In-line posting has never seemed to be a problem. Attachments have never been a problem in replies to sender but not in initial posts and replies to the list. Link to attachments hosted elsewhere are fine.
Cheers, BJ
On 05 Dec 14:05, John Woodard wrote:
I've never really had a problem with top posting and have myself done so by accident many times. it's pretty much the norm these days, however it is frowned upon on this list.
For good reason...
--- Example --- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? --- End ---
Good practice is to remove any non relevant text from the quoted text whilst giving some indication on where an deletion edit has been made. In-line posting has never seemed to be a problem.
That's because in-line posting makes sense...
Attachments have never been a problem in replies to sender but not in initial posts and replies to the list. Link to attachments hosted elsewhere are fine.
Though, if it's a temporary url, less helpful later when someone goes looking for it in the archive :)
On 05/12/13 14:40, Brett Parker wrote:
--- Example --- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? --- End ---
That was what I was trying to unforget.
On 5 December 2013 14:40, Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk wrote:
On 05 Dec 14:05, John Woodard wrote:
I've never really had a problem with top posting and have myself done so by accident many times. it's pretty much the norm these days, however it is frowned upon on this list.
For good reason...
--- Example --- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? --- End ---
Fair point, you are absolutely right.
Good practice is to remove any non relevant text from the quoted text whilst giving some indication on where an deletion edit has been made. In-line posting has never seemed to be a problem.
That's because in-line posting makes sense...
Always preferable to reams of irrelevant text from numerous posters to scroll through just to fine a me too comment at the end.
Attachments have never been a problem in replies to sender but not in initial posts and replies to the list. Link to attachments hosted elsewhere are fine.
Though, if it's a temporary url, less helpful later when someone goes looking for it in the archive :)
Another good point.
Cheers, BJ
On 05/12/13 14:58, John Woodard wrote:
On 5 December 2013 14:40, Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk wrote:
On 05 Dec 14:05, John Woodard wrote:
I've never really had a problem with top posting and have myself done so by accident many times. it's pretty much the norm these days, however it is frowned upon on this list.
For good reason...
--- Example --- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? --- End ---
Fair point, you are absolutely right.
Good practice is to remove any non relevant text from the quoted text whilst giving some indication on where an deletion edit has been made. In-line posting has never seemed to be a problem.
That's because in-line posting makes sense...
Always preferable to reams of irrelevant text from numerous posters to scroll through just to fine a me too comment at the end.
Attachments have never been a problem in replies to sender but not in initial posts and replies to the list. Link to attachments hosted elsewhere are fine.
Though, if it's a temporary url, less helpful later when someone goes looking for it in the archive :)
Another good point.
Cheers, BJ
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Me too!
<snip loads of irrelevant sh1t>
In-line posting has never seemed to be a problem.
That's because in-line posting makes sense...
Always preferable to reams of irrelevant text from numerous posters to scroll through just to fine a me too comment at the end.
Attachments have never been a problem in replies to sender but not in initial posts and replies to the list. Link to attachments hosted elsewhere are fine.
Though, if it's a temporary url, less helpful later when someone goes looking for it in the archive :)
Another good point.
Cheers, BJ
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Me too!
I don't subscribe to the lol culture but this did actually make me laugh!
Cheers, BJ
On 05/12/13 15:12, John Woodard wrote:
<snip loads of irrelevant sh1t>
In-line posting has never seemed to be a problem.
That's because in-line posting makes sense...
Always preferable to reams of irrelevant text from numerous posters to scroll through just to fine a me too comment at the end.
Attachments have never been a problem in replies to sender but not in initial posts and replies to the list. Link to attachments hosted elsewhere are fine.
Though, if it's a temporary url, less helpful later when someone goes looking for it in the archive :)
Another good point.
Cheers, BJ
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Me too!
I don't subscribe to the lol culture but this did actually make me laugh!
Me too!
actualol
Cheers, BJ
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Sorry for having caused a fuss.
I must have switched to HTML format at some time and forgotten to switch back.
Also at work anyone can send to our email lists (not just members), so I tend to "reply - all" just to make sure that if the question is from a non - member then it gets to them. The HTML header meaning my reply got held up meant it looked like an off list reply.
Again, sorry for the fuss.
Cheers,
Ewan
On 05/12/13 15:27, Ewan Slater wrote:
Sorry for having caused a fuss.
I must have switched to HTML format at some time and forgotten to switch back.
Also at work anyone can send to our email lists (not just members), so I tend to "reply - all" just to make sure that if the question is from a non - member then it gets to them. The HTML header meaning my reply got held up meant it looked like an off list reply.
Again, sorry for the fuss.
Not sure it was you who created the fuss - I think it might have been me by commenting on it! :-)
Steve
On 5 Dec 2013, at 15:07, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:
On 05/12/13 14:58, John Woodard wrote:
On 5 December 2013 14:40, Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk wrote:
On 05 Dec 14:05, John Woodard wrote:
I've never really had a problem with top posting and have myself done so by accident many times. it's pretty much the norm these days, however it is frowned upon on this list.
For good reason...
--- Example --- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? --- End ---
Fair point, you are absolutely right.
Good practice is to remove any non relevant text from the quoted text whilst giving some indication on where an deletion edit has been made. In-line posting has never seemed to be a problem.
That's because in-line posting makes sense...
Always preferable to reams of irrelevant text from numerous posters to scroll through just to fine a me too comment at the end.
Attachments have never been a problem in replies to sender but not in initial posts and replies to the list. Link to attachments hosted elsewhere are fine.
Though, if it's a temporary url, less helpful later when someone goes looking for it in the archive :)
Another good point.
Cheers, BJ
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Me too!
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Yep!
#2 ... and sometimes person #7 will comment here
On 05/12/13 14:40, Brett Parker wrote:
On 05 Dec 14:05, John Woodard wrote:
I've never really had a problem with top posting and have myself done so by accident many times. it's pretty much the norm these days, however it is frowned upon on this list.
For good reason...
--- Example --- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
#3 ...and then person #8 will comment here....
A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? --- End ---
#1 Then sometimes person #6 will comment here...
#4 ... which can make things confusing. So you need a standard, and stick to it. Someone chose bottom and/or inline (which are mostly compatible), so that 's OK.
Steve
On 05/12/13 12:57, Bev Nicolson wrote:
<snip> << * If someone posts on ALUG, generally try to reply on list, unless it's personal or confidential. Otherwise someone searching for the solution to a problem may find someone on ALUG with the same problem, but be unable to find the solution because it was posted off list.
<snip>
Perhaps it would be worth re-posting the "rules" and/or etiquette on a regular basis? Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am). Steve >>
Although there are exception when, for example, people need to send .bin files to fix things like scanners... Then anything other than off list would be rude.
Could I add snipping text if you can when replying to long posts or a series of posts? Please? Thank you.
Otherwise they sound entirely reasonable, Steve.
Bev. (Who will try not to top post in future.)
And some sort of indent on quoted text would speed-up reading posts.
Largely a matter of personal preference I think.
I'd probably use Ruby or Java myself.
What happens to the file afterwards (does it get loaded into some othe system)? On Dec 4, 2013 2:07 PM, "Mark Rogers" mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:
I have a requirement to do some scripted text file processing on Windows. I plan on using a cross-platform tool (awk comes to mind) but as I don't have any real skills in anything (I used awk many years ago but not recently) I thought it best to come at it with a clean slate, as I will want to re-use the skills I pick up (almost entirely on Linux).
What I need to do in this case is read a CSV file, remove a few lines that are of no interest and combine a couple of fields to create new ones. Awk would definitely do this (albeit I have some reading to do to remember how) - but is it still the best tool for the job?
Mark
-- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
On 4 December 2013 13:57, Ewan Slater ewan.slater@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd probably use Ruby or Java myself.
I could use a "bigger" script language (Python crossed my mind) but it would be overkill - especially on a host like Windows that doesn't have stuff like that already installed! Too often I pull out a scripting language to do something that sed or awk would do (increasingly I do use sed but I suspect I want something a bit more like awk here).
What happens to the file afterwards (does it get loaded into some othe system)?
It gets uploaded to an FTP server. What happens after that I don't know!
-
Adam Bower -
Anthony Anson -
Bev Nicolson -
Bill Hill -
Brett Parker -
Ewan Slater -
John Woodard -
Mark Rogers -
Steve Engledow -
Steve Engledow -
steve-ALUG＠hst.me.uk -
Ted.Harding＠wlandres.net